[2026:RJ-JP:12187] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6942/2020 Rashmi Sisodia Wife Of Shri Ravindra Kumar Jain, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Flat No. 702, 703 Bony Star Complex, Shri Ram Vihar, Sector 26, Pratap Nagr, Jaipur 302033 ----Petitioner Versus 1. University Of Rajasthan, Through The Vice-Chancellor, Jln Marg, Jaipur- 302004, Rajasthan, India. 2. The Registrar, University Of Rajasthan, Jln Marg, Jaipur 302004, Rajasthan, India. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ayush Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rachit Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 16/01/2026 1. The instant petition is filed by the petitioner with following prayer:- “a) Quash the order dated 08.06.2020 issued by the Respondent No.2, b) Amend the order dated 29.02.2020 by adding 75 days of Privilege Leave for not availing summer vacations of 4 academic sessions i.e. 2015-16, 2016- 17, 2017, 18 and 2018-19, c) Direct the Respondents to pass an order for encashment of balance 48 days of Privilege Leave along with 12% interest from the date of the Petitioner's retirement i.e. 31.01.2020 till the date of payment, and d) Pass any other appropriate order or direction which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue pertains to non-adding 75 days of Privilege Leave (PL) to the [2026:RJ-JP:12187] (2 of 5) [CW-6942/2020] petitioner's account for which the petitioner was eligible in lieu of work done by her during summer vacation in the academic session 2015-16 to 2018-19 in accordance with the Rule 27 (ii) of the Rajasthan University Employees' Leave Rules Ordinance, 1986 and order dated 31.12.2018. He further submits that the petitioner has superannuated on 31.01.2020, but despite her repeated reminders, she was only paid leave encashment amount for 252 days. He also submits that the material on record is sufficient to presume that the petitioner has done her work during these four academic sessions. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and submits that the petitioner being Head of Department was required to obtain prior permission for work done during summer vacation, but the petitioner has failed to procure previous sanction, so she is not entitled for adding of 75 days as privilege leave for academic session 2015-16 to 2018-19. He referred and placed reliance upon the reply and the instructions issued by the University from time to time. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. The issue pertains to adding 75 days of privilege leave (PL) to the leave account of the petitioner. The ground of refusal is that the prior permission of the Vice-Chancellor (V.C.) has not been obtained before discharging work during summer vacation. 6. Rule 27 (ii) of the Rajasthan University Employees' Leave Rules Ordinance, 1986, is reproduced as under:- "Privilege leave shall also be admissible to a teacher if he is required to work during vacation [2026:RJ-JP:12187] (3 of 5) [CW-6942/2020] time. Such leave shall be in proportion of 1:2, i.e. one day's privilege leave for two days of duty. Such leave shall not exceed 20 days in one academic year. No teacher shall normally be asked to work for more than 40 days during the vacations. Such Heads of Departments whose presence is necessary in their departments during the vacations shall be entitled to such leave provided that they obtain prior permission of the Vice-Chancellor." 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has superannuated on 31.01.2020, but prior to her superannuation, she was appointed as HOD, Zoology Department, vide order dated 19.02.2016 (Annexure-2). The petitioner was replaced by Dr. T.J. John vide order dated 13.02.2019. The record indicate that vide letter dated 16.05.2016 and 01.05.2018, the petitioner (as HOD) intimated to the Vice Chancellor for detaining the faculty during vacations. A letter dated 26/27 July 2019 (Annexure-8) reflects that the present petitioner was detained from 01.05.2019 to 31.05.2019 and intimation is sent to the Registrar. 8. Afterwards, the issue was considered in the meeting of syndicate and an order dated 01.04.2021 was issued wherein norms about prior permission was relaxed and compensatory leave was permitted even when letter has been sent on time. Another letter dated 03.01.2022 filed on record indicate that compensatory leave was credited from session 2010-2011. 9. An order dated 03.02.2022 is issued by the Registrar wherein name of the present petitioner is not included in the order to grant benefit. Rule 27(ii) of Rules of 1986 as referred hereinabove indicate that all teacher if he is required to work during vacation time, is entitled for privilege leave and such leave shall be in proportion to 1:2 but shall not exceed 20 days in one [2026:RJ-JP:12187] (4 of 5) [CW-6942/2020] academic year. A specific provision is available about the HODs and it indicate that they are entitled if they obtained prior permission from the V.C. 10. Here in this case, intimation has already been sent to the Vice Chancellor but whether same has been refused by the Vice Chancellor is not placed on record by the respondents. A certificate dated 25.06.2020 (Annexure-6) issued by HOD indicate that the petitioner was detained in the Department during summer vacation for three consecutive years and the petitioner was available on duty from 01.05.2019 to 31.05.2019, when she was not HOD, thus for this period no prior approval was needed. 11. The policy of the University, which was modified even by administrative circulars clearly indicate that the petitioner was not extended the benefit of office orders dated 01.04.2021 and 03.01.2022. The action of the respondents is not only discriminatory, but violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to add 75 days as PL in her leave account and is entitled for leave encashment subject to maximum of 300 days as admissible under the Rules. 12. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is hereby allowed and the order dated 08.06.2020 is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to add 75 days of Privilege Leave in leave account of the petitioner for not availing summer vacations of three academic sessions 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 and also period of detention from 01.5.2019 to 31.5.2019 in academic session 2018-2019. The respondents are directed to make payment of [2026:RJ-JP:12187] (5 of 5) [CW-6942/2020] remaining privilege leave, but subject to outer limit of 300 days to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of reciept of a copy of the order, failing which the petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum till actual realization. 13. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed with pending applications if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/86